What happens when large numbers of people “exit” their country due to political oppression? How does their absence change the culture? How does that shape politics, for better or for worse?
Those are the questions Chipo Dendere, assistant professor of Africana studies at Wellesley, asks in Death, Diversion, and Departure: Voter Exit and the Persistence of Authoritarianism in Zimbabwe. In the book, published in December 2025 by Cambridge University Press, she examines how the exit of young, progressive voters—through emigration, death, the silencing of voices, or other means—creates opportunities for authoritarian regimes to survive.
Dendere says this cycle of oppression is increasingly common worldwide, and that the only appropriate—and necessary!—response is continued political participation from those who have the resources. A Zimbabwean-born scholar specializing in political science, Dendere focuses on the factors that influence party survival and democratization in the developing world. Here’s what else she says about political engagement in Zimbabwe and beyond.
How did this book come about?
When I was a kid, I never thought I’d leave Zimbabwe. But my stepdad was educated at Cambridge, and he always suggested I think about attending law school at Cambridge. I never did go to the U.K., but I moved to the U.S. for school.
Then, when I was in graduate school, I started to see patterns in my research about much of southern Africa: I noticed that political parties that came into power stayed in power. There were lots of reasons for this, but those reasons didn’t make sense to me. So my graduate school adviser suggested that I undertake more travel, across Africa, to explore this.
I am now living and working in the United States. But I make it a point to return to Zimbabwe for every election—to see my family, to conduct research, and to vote.
So you no longer live in Zimbabwe, but you still are active in Zimbabwe. Why is that important?
In the book, I ask: When you move, what happens to your voice? What happens to your vote? My strong hope is for people to remain involved in democracy from afar. I want this book to be a cautionary tale—a message that can help inspire people to not want to leave. But for those who do leave, I hope it will encourage mobilizing from afar, and voting from afar.
What methodology did you use for this book?
I used a mixed-method approach. My book includes 300 interviews, quantitative data from the Afrobarometer and the UNAIDS Spectrum on HIV, as well as data from experiments done on trust. I also conducted a lot of archival research.
Your research focused on migration in Zimbabwe. To what extent is that a marker for out-migration in other parts of the world?
The Zimbabwe analysis applies everywhere! Look at Libya: When Moammar Gadhafi died in 2011, hundreds of thousands of people left—and those people were middle class. So I started studying people who crossed borders in Turkey, China, and elsewhere. These were middle-class people who were leaving even though they had a good life. What I’ve found is that authoritarianism makes the cost of participation higher; it makes voting riskier.
You’ve spent time this semester traveling to nearly two dozen cities all over the U.S. to talk about this book, and this summer you’ll talk about it at universities in South Africa and Australia. Why?
Really, it’s not useful for scholars’ academic work to be hidden within the ivory tower. It doesn’t make sense to talk about Zimbabwean refugees when they can’t get access to the book that you’re writing. That’s why I travel, and that’s also why I’m active on social media. I want to write a book that my mother can read. It’s important for those of us who have a voice to use it in the most powerful way.